This is NOT a gun problem, and if you relax that knee, you'll understand.

There is no doubt that guns can be used to kill people. War is the easiest way to prove that statement. But guns cannot do a damn thing by themselves. They need an operator.

The very recent shootings should have people talking about terrorism, radical Islam, protecting the homeland. But what is the loudest noise in the media? #ing Gun Control!

In Paris, the citizens don't have guns like US. But there was still two major shootings there. California has very strict gun laws, but there was still a mass shooting there. All done by radical Muslims. Now it may be too early to pin-point the CA shooting on this glaring reality, but the facts as we know them sure look that way. One thing that we know is that War is hell. And this small group is at war with the rest of us.

Now please read that important word before you accuse me of being an islamaphobe or some hater of Muslims. If Radical Christians were doing this, I'd call them that. But this time it's radical Muslims. And make no mistake they are at war.

I think we need to look to the Muslim population for a solution. We don't know what it takes to determine a radical from a peace loving moderate. They do. We can't look at a crowd of men and women walking from a prayer service in a mosque and know which one's were just plotting the next shooting. But they might be able to.

It's hugely uncomfortable to have this conversation. It can devolve into the ignorant "all X are evil" discussion in a matter of seconds. But it needs to be had, eventually by all who truly understand human nature. Good vs. Evil. A good person, be him a Muslim, Christian, Atheist, or just a guy named Bob, knows that life is precious. A bad person, of any denomination or background, cares little about the sanctity of live.

The question is, how many more of these things have to happen before the real talk can take place?

And before you bring gun control into this thread, answer this one question, what law would have prevented any of these recent shootings?

a reply to: network dude

Despite the fact that countries with more guns tend to have FAR MORE gun related incidents and deaths.

Despite the fact that, even if everyone had a gun, then those who wish to kill others with said gun to cause terrorism will simply get MORE POWERFUL GUNS than everybody else.

Despite the fact that studies show countries WITHOUT GUNS have FAR LESS crime related deaths than their opposites.

And, yet, all of these talking points are muted when conservatives and NRA reps bring up "mental health" and "who's behind the gun" trump cards. These are no longer intelligent counter-arguments. They are deadly excuses.

I agree that a discussion needs to take place and I will only touch on a couple points you made.

all who truly understand human nature. Good vs. Evil.

I think it's a fallacy to say someone is either good or evil. Even those we would label as evil, do not believe themselves to be evil. The are able to rationalize what they do and what they believe in their own minds. Perhaps they even may believe what they are doing is actually "good", and what you are doing is evil.

So I think we have to stay away from such language because it takes the discussion out of, what I would consider, the reach of logic.

And before you bring gun control into this thread, answer this one question, what law would have prevented any of these recent shootings?

Considering that these firearms appear to have been legally obtained, an anti-2nd argument would probably contain quite a long list of laws that could be changed to stop people from acquiring firearms.

I don't believe that is the question you want to ask because it only opens the door wider for gun control proponents to attack.

Main scream media slogan: Never let an agenda go to waste.

Are they still covering their coverage?

a reply to: Passerby1996

Despite the fact that countries with more guns tend to have FAR MORE gun related incidents and deaths.

Explain Switzerland.

Despite the fact that, even if everyone had a gun, then those who wish to kill others with said gun to cause terrorism will simply get MORE POWERFUL GUNS than everybody else.

If you'll notice, these whackos avoid places where they know people might be armed. But they love gun-free zones. They prey on the defenseless. Not those who can defend themselves. They are cowards.

Despite the fact that studies show countries WITHOUT GUNS have FAR LESS crime related deaths than their opposites.

Again. Explain Switzerland. While you're at it, explain Jamaica in the 70's. Also explain why crime is at a low in the U.S. right now?

And, yet, all of these talking points are muted when conservatives and NRA reps bring up "mental health" and "who's behind the gun" trump cards. These are no longer intelligent counter-arguments. They are deadly excuses.

On this, we can agree to some extent. It isn't about mental health...

An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life. - Robert Heinlen

a reply to: introvert

The good people I know would only EVER consider taking a life to protect their family. Most would risk death to help save a stranger. That is what I consider a good person. Someone who can kill (anything) with no remorse is a bad person. Sorry it's dumbed down that much, but it's how I see things.

And no gun control would not have done a thing in any of these cases. Legally obtained or not, these shooters planned this well ahead of time. Obtaining the tools to do what they planned is only a minor technicality. If you think about that for a minute, you will understand.

a reply to: network dude

If the number of deaths from guns was the real driving force behind the "gun grabbers" screaming about gun control, why not take a look at the number of deaths from automobile wrecks and drunk drivers.
I don't hear anyone talking about banning cars or doing better background checks to elliminated those who drink from buying one.

I am not saying this should be done. I just want to inject some points of sanity into this discussing.
It is not guns which kill the most people.

originally posted by: intrptr
Main scream media slogan: Never let an agenda go to waste.

Are they still covering their coverage?

Hearing the gun control talk before the shooters were even identified drives that point home.
Almost like the MSM was waiting with cameras at the ready for the "next one".

a reply to: tinymind

understood and agreed. Please read the OP.

a reply to: tinymind

Yes because cars are built to kill people, when i got my license to drive there was no section on how to kill people with it.apples and oranges

I think we should ban cancer,'even better get people to need a permit before they get cancer, makes so much sense.

originally posted by: Passerby1996
a reply to: network dude

Despite the fact that countries with more guns tend to have FAR MORE gun related incidents and deaths.

Despite the fact that, even if everyone had a gun, then those who wish to kill others with said gun to cause terrorism will simply get MORE POWERFUL GUNS than everybody else.

Despite the fact that studies show countries WITHOUT GUNS have FAR LESS crime related deaths than their opposites.

And, yet, all of these talking points are muted when conservatives and NRA reps bring up "mental health" and "who's behind the gun" trump cards. These are no longer intelligent counter-arguments. They are deadly excuses.

Durr, sir. Durr. Of course countries with more guns have more gun crime. What about overall violent crime rates? Do they just magically go down when you remove legal guns from a society?

The numbers say otherwise - in the UK violent and sexual crime rates have gone up since effectively banning guns for personal defense.

I imagine if you compare the rates of vehicular accidents between the US and some Amazon tribe behind that tunnel vision of yours you could manufacture a compelling argument toward banning motor vehicles as well.

Another incidence of mass violence and another call to throw all the guns in the sea so we can all be safe. If only things were that black-and-white. There are more than 30,000 gun-related deaths each year in the US. That includes ALL sources: gang violence, police killings, suicides and the kind of crap we see all too often like San Bernadino. So if we took ALL the guns we could find out of private people's hands would that fix things? Or just let people feel like something is being done. In comparison, there are over 88,000 deaths related to alcohol each year. About 15% are driving-related (which accounts for over 30% of all traffic fatalities). Do we outlaw alcohol? Do we outlaw driving? Gun control advocates may hate to keep hearing it but it's true. he problem goes much, much deeper than guns. Those same SB shooters were wearing Kevlar (illegal) and hurling pipe bombs (also illegal). Do you really think they'd bail on their clearly carefully crafted plan cause they had to buy a gun off the street? Would you feel better if they firebombed the IRC? Or lobbed a chlorine bomb inside? These were two radicalized nutjobs. Period.

This is a constant debate. I am just going to say that America, with it's 380,000,000 citizens, and a huge population of illegals, is not like Britain, or Canada, or Germany, or France, or any other country.

People like Obama that stand on their high horse and say other countries don't have this problem are comparing apples and oranges. But he will spout that insane rhetoric over and over and over never "getting it".

Even our geography is spread out and vast and did you know that we have people living here from every country on the planet but one.

Apples and oranges cannot be fairly compared.

(Guard your 2A like it was gold.)

a reply to: network dude

Someone who can kill (anything) with no remorse is a bad person.

A bad person is quite different than saying they are "evil". Using that term puts a religious connotation to the discussion and it alienates people from engaging in the discussion you wish to have.

That is the goal you seek, correct? To have a discussion?

And no gun control would not have done a thing in any of these cases. Legally obtained or not, these shooters planned this well ahead of time. Obtaining the tools to do what they planned is only a minor technicality. If you think about that for a minute, you will understand.

I understand it very well. I was only pointing-out that your particular approach in asking that question, and the circumstances in which these firearms were obtained, leaves it wide open for being completely torn to shreds. Some would say that plenty of laws could have affected their ability to acquire.

a reply to: network dude

It should be noted that both of these Muslims were legal US citizens (they were born here too) and obtained their rifles legally.

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
a reply to: tinymind
I think we should ban cancer,'even better get people to need a permit before they get cancer, makes so much sense.

Please. Don't give congress any new ideas. They come up with enough hair brain schemes of their own.

a reply to: queenofswords

People like Obama that stand on their high horse

This is one of the reasons it's hard to have an intelligent discussion on this issue. Crap like this alienates people and it's annoying.

Why can't we address the issue without some lame reference to Obama, Leftists and such?

I'm a Leftist. I'm pro 2nd amendment.

So where do we go from here?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: network dude

It should be noted that both of these Muslims were legal US citizens (they were born here too) and obtained their rifles legally.

Fine. Being a U.S. citizen does not make you 'American'. IMO, they were not Americans. They may have obtained them legally (I'm not sure yet), but they USED them illegally. They suffered the consequences.

And guess what?! While those two Islamic terrorists were misusing their 2A, 99.99999 per cent of the rest of us were not.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: network dude

It should be noted that both of these Muslims were legal US citizens (they were born here too) and obtained their rifles legally.

Yes. It should be noted. It should also be noted that the market for illegal firearms is huge in the U.S. Getting them illegally would not have slowed them down any, since this was no doubt planned in advance.

a reply to: Klassified

Switzerland: I'm no expert on Switzerland, but I'm pretty sure I have the explanation you need. It has to do with the broad wealth of the entire country, not due to the fact everyone has guns. I hope you realize that people who have better living standards and thus greater access to therapy for anyone with a mental illness makes crime related incidents quite rare. In other words, there are few poorer or disenfranchised populations in Switzerland than in other countries. So, if there's no reasons to be angry at your conditions, why fight against them? Then you see the United States, which is still dealing with the aftereffects of centuries of slavery and segregation, and many poor communities ripe to grow crazy people in. Please, explain away this explanation.

People Targeting Gun-Free Zones: Obviously. If you want to get a leg-up on a better-armed enemy, you go for his weak points. I'm not saying this is the thinking for everybody, but for groups of crazy people this explains much of their thinking. Unless you're talking about heavily-armed terrorists, but in that case they have the connections to buy much more powerful weapons to beat back any gun-wielding resistance they might find.

Jamaica: I'll have to look that one up, but it's likely the same explanation for Switzerland although with different themes. I'm typing this all from my phone, and I don't want my speed in typing these responses to make you think I'm grasping at straws.